In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The (G.O.P.) Party’s Over," would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman ignores this embarrassing treatment of an ally and instead turns his attention to America's presidential election. Without reference to FBI Director Comey's condemnation of Hillary Clinton's extreme carelessness involving her use of a home server while secretary of state, and ignoring the flagrant lies that she disseminated to the public over the past year to justify this abomination, Friedman sees fit to unequivocally endorse the Democratic candidate:

"Our country needs a healthy center-right party that can compete with a healthy center-left party.

. . . .

The [Republican] party grew into a messy, untended garden, and Donald Trump was like an invasive species that finally just took over the whole thing.

. . . .

A Clinton sweep in November would force more Republicans to start rebuilding a center-right party ready to govern and compromise. And a Clinton sweep would also mean Hillary could govern from the place where her true political soul resides — the center-left, not the far left."

Don't misunderstand me: I regard Hillary as the lesser of the two evils. But for Friedman to claim that there is anything healthy about a center-left party nominating Hillary Clinton is nothing less than rank hypocrisy.

4 comments:

read the Party platforms. The Democratic Party platform would ditch the U.S. Constitution for being a 'quaint artifact of a slave-owning patriarchy'

It is frightening that anyone wants another four years of the cynical 'fundamental transformation' of what once was the United States of America into a vassal of the United Nations, "governed" by 'Evita'.

perhaps Tom Friedman was assigned to pre-empt William Galston in the WSJ: " The Democratic Platform’s Sharp Left Turn" "...on its near-silence on economic growth. The uninformed reader would not learn that the pace of recovery from the Great Recession has been anemic by postwar standards, or that productivity gains have slowed to a crawl over the past five years, or that firms have been reluctant to invest in new productive capacity. Rather, the platform draft’s core narrative is inequality, the injustice that inequality entails, and the need to rectify it through redistribution..."

"...the new language on Israel proposed for the Republican Party platform for 2016.

The short story on it is that the new language doesn’t make explicit reference to a “two-state solution”: i.e., an affirmation that there should be a “Palestinian state” alongside the nation of Israel.

The platforms of 2004, 2008, and 2012 made such affirmations. But the committee preparing the 2016 platform’s section on Israel voted 14-2 in favor of new language, which simply affirms that the arrangement must be worked out by the parties themselves. ..."

interesting read about how AIPAC is fighting the GOP on this whilst the Dem's party platform is one protest away from citing the illegal "occupation" of Palestine.